Subject: Re: [PWE3] [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01

From: George Swallow <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:14:01 -0400

Shahram -

See inline

On 3/11/10 7:27 PM, "Shahram Davari" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> Couple of comments:
> 
> 1) Why the Interface_ID is 32-bit while the Tunnel_ID is 16-bit? Do we need to
> support more interfaces than tunnels?

GS:  Planning to change scope of Tunnel_ID.  Just needs to be unique in the
context of the Session Object as defined in 3209 with source address used as
the extended tunnel-id

> 2) The draft defines the Global_Tunnel_ID as:
>       Src-Global_ID::Src-Node_ID::Src-Tunnel_Num::
> Dst-Global_ID::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num
> 
> This seems to define a bidirectional tunnel. Is that the intent? If so please
> clarify. If not then why Dst-Global_ID::Dst-Node_ID::Dst-Tunnel_Num is needed?
> 
GS: The scope is bidirectional.  But I suppose it can be applied to
unidirectional as well.  I still don¹t understand the requirement for
unidirectional  seems to be that bidirectional with 0 data-bandwidth in the
reverse direction would do better as you would have a return path for OAM
and DCC etc.
> 
> 3) Is section 5.2 talking about unidirectional LSP or bidirectional LSP?
> 
GS: Ditto
> 
> 4) Section 7.1.2.1 says:
>         Since a MEG pertains to a single MPLS-TP Tunnel, IP compatible MEG_IDs
> for MPLS-TP Tunnels are simply the corresponding Tunnel_IDs
> 
> Assuming the Tunnel_ID is a unidirectional ID, then this statement implies
> that for the reverse direction a different MEG_ID is required. Is that the
> intent? If so why?
> 
GS: Not unidirectional!
> 
> 5) Why are drafts part of the normative references?
> 
Cut and paste error actually!  Thanks for pointing it out!
> 
> 6) Will section 8 (open issues) be removed before publishing? This section
> implies that the MEP and MIP definition is not yet aligned with framework?
> 
GS: Yes
> 
> Regards,
> Shahram
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Loa
> Andersson
> Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2010 3:33 PM
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: [mpls] mpls wg last call on draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01
> 
> All,
> 
> this is to start an MPLS working group last call on
> draft-ietf-mpls-tp-identifiers-01
> 
> There is a discussion on the OAM model for MS-PWs where we haven't been
> able to come to conclusion. Once we reach agreement the document will
> be updated. Comments in this area are welcome during the working group
> last call.
> 
> 
> Please send your comments to the [email-masked] mailing list.
> 
> The working group last ends eob April 2nd.
> 
> /Loa
> 
> --
> 
> Loa Andersson
> 
> Sr Strategy and Standards Manager
> Ericsson ///
>    phone:  +46 10 717 52 13
>            +46 767 72 92 13
> 
>    email:  [email-masked]
>            [email-masked]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> mpls mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mpls
>